I don't see much disagreement with you Joe, but from a few members. It may be residual stuff from your original post? I haven't seen anyone convince me that marginalizing is a bad idea, so those who are against it would have more work to do to convince me. And I have not seen any level of condoning any sort of violence, or stripping of freedoms, etc.

My biggest concern is the sheer size of the problem. The magnitude of freedom given to religions in the U.S. alone is so overwhelming - just the tax free status alone represents more money than I can imagine, and I am guessing that no one who is close to that money wants it to be shut off, so to speak. And if 80% of U.S. citizens call themselves Christian, then we have our work cut out.

There may have been some key moments in history where things like the flat earth were dumped, and as long as the apologists are able to explain it, they get to keep their delusion, but progress in knowledge moves ahead anyway. We are all familiar with the god of the gaps argument, but it seems too easy for theists to ignore stuff like that. They simply cannot ignore the very real and demonstrable fact that our planet is not flat.

To me, marginalizing is a process, and it will take time, and patience. Consistency and numbers are probably the key, and none of it has to especially mean-spirited, necessarily. But if we try too hard to avoid hurt feelings, then we get nowhere. If a friend has a booger in their nose, you have to tell them - even if it temporarily embarrasses them!

I would truly like to see the more moderate believers actually feel some embarrassment when their fundy brethren are heaping tons of creationist crap on our public schools, for example. I want to see those believers get embarrassed enough to speak out, take some action, and start slowly marginalizing the idiots who think the Flintstones is a documentary.

I don't get why there's so much debate about marginalizing religion. It's what we're already doing, and it's working.<snip>Isn't this our goal?

Indeed. Do you understand how ferociously people cling to their self projection? Consider the real world for just a moment. The techniques you have bought into and espouse serve only one purpose, to divide. If you were not aware before you joined this forum you should at least be starting to understand by now that many members of this forum value individual liberty very highly. We are all humans...for better or for worse we are all in this together. Instead of drawing lines in the sand we SHOULD be trying to devise a way to live together in some sort of harmony. If your only goal is to beat down the opposition then you are part of the problem.

« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 01:09:29 AM by jaybwell32 »

Logged

Every night I flirt with death and every morning I wake up disappointed.

I got my definition of marginalization from Wikipedia. By that definition, all that we'd be doing is discriminating against theists based on their beliefs rather than their actions, as it has been done to many minorities.If we don't like it, why the double standard?

I don't get why there's so much debate about marginalizing religion. It's what we're already doing, and it's working.<snip>Isn't this our goal?

Indeed. Do you understand how ferociously people cling to their self projection? Consider the real world for just a moment. The techniques you have bought into and espouse serve only one purpose, to divide. If you were not aware before you joined this forum you should at least be starting to understand by now that many members of this forum value individual liberty very highly. We are all humans...for better or for worse we are all in this together. Instead of drawing lines in the sand we SHOULD be trying to devise a way to live together in some sort of harmony. If your only goal is to beat down the opposition then you are part of the problem.

Good point. Let's all start going to church. Wouldn't want to offend anyone.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

I don't get why there's so much debate about marginalizing religion. It's what we're already doing, and it's working.<snip>Isn't this our goal?

Indeed. Do you understand how ferociously people cling to their self projection? Consider the real world for just a moment. The techniques you have bought into and espouse serve only one purpose, to divide. If you were not aware before you joined this forum you should at least be starting to understand by now that many members of this forum value individual liberty very highly. We are all humans...for better or for worse we are all in this together. Instead of drawing lines in the sand we SHOULD be trying to devise a way to live together in some sort of harmony. If your only goal is to beat down the opposition then you are part of the problem.

Good point. Let's all start going to church. Wouldn't want to offend anyone.

Read jaybwell32's post again. Start with the bold part, then read the rest.Nowhere does it mention that we shouldn't offend anyone, nor does it say that we should start going to church[1].

What human suffering? Are you still assuming that we want to kill or imprison theists for their beliefs, despite the fact that nobody has even remotely suggested that, and despite having clearly explained, repeatedly, the non-violent education-based plan to liberate the minds of theists?

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

What human suffering? Are you still assuming that we want to kill or imprison theists for their beliefs, despite the fact that nobody has even remotely suggested that, and despite having clearly explained, repeatedly, the non-violent education-based plan to liberate the minds of theists?

Restricting freedom (marginalizing) causes suffering.How would you feel in a theocracy, knowing that you have no power over anything that matters to you? Wait, let me guess - you wouldn't care because you don't care about the country you're in or if decisions were made to kill all atheists in said country.

What human suffering? Are you still assuming that we want to kill or imprison theists for their beliefs, despite the fact that nobody has even remotely suggested that, and despite having clearly explained, repeatedly, the non-violent education-based plan to liberate the minds of theists?

I am not going to argue semantics with you Joe. All I am trying to say is that, all things being equal, if you were a Christian you would make Fred Phelps look like Mother Theresa.

Edit to add:Compared to suffering, death is preferable.

« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 01:55:54 AM by jaybwell32 »

Logged

Every night I flirt with death and every morning I wake up disappointed.

How would you feel in a theocracy, knowing that you have no power over anything that matters to you? Wait, let me guess - you wouldn't care because you don't care about the country you're in or if decisions were made to kill all atheists in said country.

I don't understand this question/comment. Can you rephrase it?

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

What human suffering? Are you still assuming that we want to kill or imprison theists for their beliefs, despite the fact that nobody has even remotely suggested that, and despite having clearly explained, repeatedly, the non-violent education-based plan to liberate the minds of theists?

I am not going to argue semantics with you Joe. All I am trying to say is that, all things being equal, if you were a Christian you would make Fred Phelps look like Mother Theresa.

I don't see how this contributes to the discussion.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Marginalisation is when a person is pushed to the edge of society. This is a potential effect of discrimination because a person is made to stand out and made to be different from everyone else and they can therefore feel like they are all alone and marginalized from the rest of society or in the case of a health and social care sector, other service users.When a person is marginalized they are made to feel like they are different and not in a good way. For example a lower class citizen being admitted to a private care trust because there is no room elsewhere and being surrounded by all upper class service users. They may then be treated differently because of that i.e. discriminated against and they may begin to feel pushed out alone because of whom they are and where they are. This is a clear example of Marginalisation.

And specifically how have I suggested I would restrict their freedoms?

Quote from: joebbowers

The second step is to create an inhospitable environment for religion. Reject it anywhere you see it. Tell your children not to say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, point out the ridiculousness of the bible, do not allow people to pray for you or bless you, mock, shame, and embarass their beliefs because frankly we can't let people believe their insanity is acceptable.

Jay, it is possible to marginalize a belief or action, rather than to marginalize people making up a segment of society.

Let's take a limited example of the "action" part: Marginalizing child abuse. No segment of society gets oppressed when child abuse is marginalized. Those who would abuse children can simply choose to stop abusing children. This has already happened in our society. Do you feel this is oppressive? Even without the weight of the law, it would still be marginalized by social decree. Law is a separate topic anyway.

A related example of maginalizing a belief: The belief that child abuse is perfectly okay. This belief has been marginalized. It is not okay to voice support for child abuse in our society. Whether there's a law against it or not (as I said, that's a different topic), we have removed acceptance of such opinions to the fringes of society. Someone who voices support for child abuse will be ridiculed or, more likely, shamed. Is that oppression?

...those perceived as being without desirability or function are removed or excluded (i.e., are "marginalized"…) from the prevalent systems of protection and integration, so limiting their opportunities and means for survival.

That is not the standard dictionary definition, however I'll agree with it in this situation.

Religion is without desirability or function. It should be removed and excluded from the prevalent systems of protection and integration. It should have no opportunity or means for survival.

Now most people will notice that I said religion and not religious believers, but I'll specifically reinforce that point for you Jay. I've said from the beginning, we are attacking their belief system, not the people who believe it.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Now most people will notice that I said religion and not religious believers, but I'll specifically reinforce that point for you Jay. I've said from the beginning, we are attacking their belief system, not the people who believe it.

If not: It's generally used to put an accurate quote of someone in one context into a different context, changing its meaning in the process. I hate to be defending Joe here given his previous attitude, but he's conducting himself a lot better than you are here tonight, Jay.

If not: It's generally used to put an accurate quote of someone in one context into a different context, changing its meaning in the process. I hate to be defending Joe here given his previous attitude, but he's conducting himself a lot better than you are here tonight, Jay.

I disagree. Jay gave a link with the quote and was trying to show how Joe's sense of morality is warped.

By ceasing to accept it socially. By treating all false beliefs equally. Is that an attack?

Some believers define themselves by their beliefs. This would be perceived as an attack. Would you be OK with that?And before you start trying to read my mind, note that I am not saying I disagree with you, nor am I saying that I agree. I am asking for your opinion.

That is not what marginalizing means. I've already provided the definition for you.

And I've provided a different one. You see, this is what happens when you don't want to "explain what you mean by something". It causes misunderstandings.

I've explained it again, and again, and again. I even provided the definition. The fact that you provided a different one is meaningless, as you should know that the definition I provided is the one I would be using.

Quote from: joebbowers

The second step is to create an inhospitable environment for religion.

A science classroom is an inhospitable environment for religion. This does nothing to suggest any action to restrict freedom.

Quote from: joebbowers

do not allow people to pray for you or bless you

You can ask someone not to pray for you or bless you. I did not suggest any action if they refused your request.

The question is only relevant if you accept my definition of marginalization.

I don't, but regardless I still don't understand the question at all. At what point did I give you the impression that I would not care if a theocratic government killed all of the atheists within their borders? That's a pretty irrational leap of judgement as I've been putting out basically the exact opposite viewpoint from the beginning.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

The original context of Jay's quote is not applicable to the present one.

How is not not applicable?Jay is trying to show that Joe's sense of morality is warped, thus proving that marginalization is wrong.There's the problem that Joe's definition of marginalization is not the same as Jay's, and that Joe's is the one that he meant. This is a flaw in the argument, but the quote is still applicable.

Jay, it is possible to marginalize a belief or action, rather than to marginalize people making up a segment of society.

I really really really don't see how when it comes to religion.

Quote

Let's take a limited example of the "action" part: Marginalizing child abuse. No segment of society gets oppressed when child abuse is marginalized. Those who would abuse children can simply choose to stop abusing children. This has already happened in our society.

Right, but religious belief is not an action. It is illegal for a person go down to the local Wicca gift shop and burn the witch. They will not be found innocent of the crime just because their Bible told them to do it. As a result witches are as safe as anybody else in America today.

Quote

A related example of maginalizing a belief: The belief that child abuse is perfectly okay. This belief has been marginalized. It is not okay to voice support for child abuse in our society. Whether there's a law against it or not (as I said, that's a different topic), we have removed acceptance of such opinions to the fringes of society. Someone who voices support for child abuse will be ridiculed or, more likely, shamed. Is that oppression?

Unfortunately that depends on your definition of *abuse* and is a subject for which I am currently struggling with. I see how it equates with the subjective nature of the definition of *marginalization* though. I would not have as much trouble accepting you using the word marginalize if you said you were using it the way Joe is trying to use it. I would still voice my concern however.

I did find something I think can put the language being used into perspective.

This article discusses the use and abuse of religious beliefs and their role in divide-and-conquer strategies. Divide-and-conquer strategies are engaged to disrupt potential coalitions between and among marginalized group members, specifically sexual minority groups and people of color. Tensions between these groups have been exacerbated by the debate on same-sex marriage and comparisons between the discriminatory treatment of each group. A component of this discussion includes a brief exploration of one of the historical abuses of religious doctrine used to legitimize the marginalization of people of color and sexual minorities in the United States. For African Americans, one form of marginalization was reflected in criminalizing interracial marriage, and for members of sexual minority groups, a form of marginalization is denying group members the right to marry. The author also explores culturally competent and respectful disciplinary and clinical responses to religiously derived prejudice against sexual minority group members and people of color and discusses the implications for multicultural discourse.

What good does it do to use the same tactics as the EVIL Christians?

Logged

Every night I flirt with death and every morning I wake up disappointed.

If not: It's generally used to put an accurate quote of someone in one context into a different context, changing its meaning in the process. I hate to be defending Joe here given his previous attitude, but he's conducting himself a lot better than you are here tonight, Jay.

I disagree. Jay gave a link with the quote and was trying to show how Joe's sense of morality is warped.

I do not feel personally responsible for children dying in Africa. I'm not ashamed to admit that. He is literally taking that quote out of context, as it came from another thread regarding a different subject than the one we are discussing.

By ceasing to accept it socially. By treating all false beliefs equally. Is that an attack?

Some believers define themselves by their beliefs. This would be perceived as an attack. Would you be OK with that?And before you start trying to read my mind, note that I am not saying I disagree with you, nor am I saying that I agree. I am asking for your opinion.

They can define themselves however they wish. We are attacking their beliefs. Our weapons are logic and truth. Only ridiculous ideas and falsehoods can be damaged by them.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

It is illegal for a person go down to the local Wicca gift shop and burn the witch. They will not be found innocent of the crime just because their Bible told them to do it. As a result witches are as safe as anybody else in America today.

Right, but why is that? Because religion is being marginalized thanks to the actions of atheists and moderate theists.